That's all right, TMF. TV got debunked big time. So big that it's not even funny! See my post above about how he interpreted Laver's words.
As to name someone, he probably say, "YOU" since it's very convenient, instead of combing through all the posts. Or he may say 'your fellow of the Fed's fringe'. Again, very convenient.
Just remind him to read and understand before replying. That's good enough.

Click to expand...

Most people vote Fed for goat on the internet polls. And most experts agree. Case closed. Most doesn't mean all. Sure, they can find a few quotes, but they really have to try hard and also put quotes in context. The fact that h2h is the only thing against Fed, proves he has the least holes. You really can't find any faults in Feds resume. And even h2h is mostly clay and to a guy from a different generation.

And Fed haters know it deep down. They just love to argue for the sake of it. Also because they thrive on getting responses from Fed fans. They just like to see them suffer. That's the whole point. They don't really want to find out the truth, it's more about making noise.

But, to be fair, they have a right to their opinion also. But so does majority. But it's like 5 people here who diminish Fed. At first I had a lot of fun listening to their crazy arguments. But now it has become sad.

You can expect Fed haters response to this post again attacking me and Fed.

Laver won 76 tournaments in open era, about the same as Federer has won.

Click to expand...

I thought he won somewhere in the 40s ATP titles. He never made the slam final after 1969, and so i'm guessing he won many little titles with a few number of players in the draw.

But keep in mind the establishment of the ATP was when tennis start migrating all over the world. ATP events begin to play on many nations, tennis got more expose, attracts more fans, and the playing pool increases. At the beginning, the field was still weak, it took sometime for the tour to grow(it's the same for the WTA). Today, tennis is the second most global sport(behind soccer) in the world. Evolution takes place.

I thought he won somewhere in the 40s ATP titles. He never made the slam final after 1969, and so i'm guessing he won many little titles with a few number of players in the draw.

But keep in mind the establishment of the ATP was when tennis start migrating all over the world. ATP events begin to play on many nations, tennis got more expose, attracts more fans, and the playing pool increases. At the beginning, the field was still weak, it took sometime for the tour to grow(it's the same for the WTA). Today, tennis is the second most global sport(behind soccer) in the world. Evolution takes place.

Click to expand...

I see, so basically, tennis was in a weak era from the late 1800s until the ATP was established in 1972? And that tennis didn't start migrating all over the world until 1972? LOL. That's your stance now? rofl

I see, so basically, tennis was in a weak era from the late 1800s until the ATP was established in 1972? And that tennis didn't start migrating all over the world until 1972? LOL. That's your stance now?rofl

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is there's more atp tournaments played across many countries. Before there were very little. Tennis was more expose to the world. Promoting, increase in prize money help elevates athletes to pursuit tennis. Why do you think tennis today is the 2nd most globalized sport? Please read the history of the ATP(and WTA) before arguing.

Sports always get better. Another example...basketball in the old days were divided into two premier league(the NBA and ABA). Both were separate league, separate pro players, but not until 1971 when both league decided to merge as one league. The competition, depth and pool got a lot far better.

What I'm saying is there's more atp tournaments played across many countries. Before there were very little. Tennis was more expose to the world. Promoting, increase in prize money help elevates athletes to pursuit tennis. Why do you think tennis today is the 2nd most globalized sport? Please read the history of the ATP(and WTA) before arguing.

Sports always get better. Another example...basketball in the old days were divided into two premier league(the NBA and ABA). Both were separate league, separate pro players, but not until 1971 when both league decided to merge as one league. The competition, depth and pool got a lot far better.

Click to expand...

I see. So your contention is that sports with more homogeneous venues and superior technology is "better" than sports with more static technology and more heterogeneous venues? The modern day where a guy can make the Top 15 with just a massive serve and not much else?

Sorry, I disagree. I personally think that the sport was beautiful back then. I feel like more of an all-court game was required. I think the game required far more skill, strategy, and the ability to adapt.

You may think that this is where sports are "getting better", but I certainly disagree with that.

No disrespect to Nadal/Federer, but I'll take a Borg/McEnroe match any day over watching Nadal hit topspin moonballs to Fed's backhand so he can shank them. I'll take Sampras/Rafter over Federer/Davydenko where those two just sit on the baseline, run back and forth, and hit 90mph forehands at each other.

Tennis hasn't gotten "better"... it has gotten worse in the skill department.

I see. So your contention is that sports with more homogeneous venues and superior technology is "better" than sports with more static technology and more heterogeneous venues? The modern day where a guy can make the Top 15 with just a massive serve and not much else?

Sorry, I disagree. I personally think that the sport was beautiful back then. I feel like more of an all-court game was required. I think the game required far more skill, strategy, and the ability to adapt.

You may think that this is where sports are "getting better", but I certainly disagree with that.

No disrespect to Nadal/Federer, but I'll take a Borg/McEnroe match any day over watching Nadal hit topspin moonballs to Fed's backhand so he can shank them. I'll take Sampras/Rafter over Federer/Davydenko where those two just sit on the baseline, run back and forth, and hit 90mph forehands at each other.

Tennis hasn't gotten "better"... it has gotten worse in the skill department.

Click to expand...

Well, better is not the same as different. You like Borg more, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it takes more skill, just because it is different.

It's tough to put value on what takes more skills. Today we have different skills. Your opinion is that more one dimensional makes it easier. First you need to prove that today we have less dimensions. Yes on the surface it seems this way. But we have other dimensions to compensate. You need more stamina, you need more defense on the baseline. You need more tactics since points are longer. They have amazing passing shots.

And even if you prove less dimensions. I don't think you can. But if you do, less dimensions means they are deeper. So it evens out.

So I don't agree that they are less dimensions. Also, I don't agree that more dimensions makes is harder, since less dimensions means deeper dimensions.

And because of money and motivation and more people playing. Also more knowledge. Nutrion and so on. Means that the closer we are to the evolutionary limits, the harder should be to distance yourself from others.

That is why to dominate even one dimension today, could be harder than to dominate 2 dimensions years ago.

And even if you prove less dimensions. I don't think you can. But if you do, less dimensions means they are deeper. So it evens out.

So I don't agree that they are less dimensions. Also, I don't agree that more dimensions makes is harder, since less dimensions means deeper dimensions.

And because of money and motivation and more people playing. Also more knowledge. Nutrion and so on. Means that the closer we are to the evolutionary limits, the harder should be to distance yourself from others.

Click to expand...

Whatever.

You can convince yourself that 3 dimensions in the past takes less or equal skill than one dimension of the modern era.... again... whatever. I don't need to prove anything. To quote another poster, all you need is some time and a pair of functioning eyes.

That is why to dominate even one dimension today, could be harder than to dominate 2 dimensions years ago.

Click to expand...

Please. Do you really think it's harder to dominate an overhead today than it was in the past? Do you really think it is harder to dominate a serve with a 9.2oz composite racquet with Luxlilon Power Rough... than to dominate it using a Dunlop Maxply Fort with natural gut that weighed upwards of a pound? Do you really think it's harder to dominate a volley today than it was in the past?

You can convince yourself that 3 dimensions in the past takes less or equal skill than one dimension of the modern era.... again... whatever. I don't need to prove anything. To quote another poster, all you need is some time and a pair of functioning eyes.

Please. Do you really think it's harder to dominate an overhead today than it was in the past? Do you really think it is harder to dominate a serve with a 9.2oz composite racquet with Luxlilon Power Rough... than to dominate it using a Dunlop Maxply Fort with natural gut that weighed upwards of a pound? Do you really think it's harder to dominate a volley today than it was in the past?

Click to expand...

I said it could be harder. I'm open to discussions. I can't prove it. That's why I didn't say like it is a fact. But you also can't prove your theory that it was harder in the past.

Also, I assume that where the field is close to the upper limit, that it takes more effort to distance yourself from the field.

And if more people play and try to compete and prizes are high, so it means more motivation, I also assume that it should be tougher.

Also you haven't proven less dimensions. Today you need good serve, return, offence, defence, speed, stamina, tactics in long rallies, constructions of points. Yes, you need less time to practice volleys, but you need so much more time to practice other things.

And also if one dimension is deep, it could be harder than multiple dimensions.
How does it help others if they lose to Karlovic? So his one dimension makes him dangerous player. Much more than guys with more dimensions. Complicated doesn't mean better.

Also it takes a lot of time and hard work to develop one dominant dimension.

I played computer game starcraft from the start on a top level. And when game became more known and more professional it was harder to dominate.
But also guys with less dimensions were dominating. With evolution more dimensions came and deeper dimensions. Also there are trends. Dimensions can change. They can become lesser but deeper. Or more of them but shallower. But overall depth is always improving, as long as more and more people are playing and the more efficient way we have of spreading information.

So, I speak form experience of playing at least one thing at the elite level.
The irony is that I learned about Fed on forum for this game, lol.

Do you have any personal experiences or studies that you have done, that you have come to those conclusions?

I said it could be harder. I'm open to discussions. I can't prove it. That's why I didn't say like it is a fact. But you also can't prove your theory that it was harder in the past.

Also, I assume that where the field is close to the upper limit, that it takes more effort to distance yourself from the field.

And if more people play and try to compete and prizes are high, so it means more motivation, I also assume that it should be tougher.

Also you haven't proven less dimensions. Today you need good serve, return, offence, defence, speed, stamina, tactics in long rallies, constructions of points. Yes, you need less time to practice volleys, but you need so much more time to practice other things.

And also if one dimension is deep, it could be harder than multiple dimensions.
How does it help others if they lose to Karlovic? So his one dimension makes him dangerous player. Much more than guys with more dimensions. Complicated doesn't mean better.

Also it takes a lot of time and hard work to develop one dominant dimension.

I played computer game starcraft from the start on a top level. And when game became more known and more professional it was harder to dominate.
But also guys with less dimensions were dominating. With evolution more dimensions came and deeper dimensions. Also there are trends. Dimensions can change. They can become lesser but deeper. Or more of them but shallower. But overall depth is always improving, as long as more and more people are playing and the more efficient way we have of spreading information.

So, I speak form experience of playing at least one thing at the elite level.
The irony is that I learned about Fed on forum for this game, lol.

Do you have any personal experiences or studies that you have done, that you have come to those conclusions?

This is my opinion and I can't change. It's ok that we disagree.

Click to expand...

I can't prove to you that innovation, improvement in technology, and standardization makes things easier for people. I can't show you studies. I can only point to my own experiences and the opinions of people who have played the game in the past versus today.

But that still isn't proof. And you know that I can't prove these things.

But I'm willing to lose the argument on these terms... because I can't prove that better technology allows people to do more with less. You can believe otherwise.

Well, better is not the same as different. You like Borg more, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it takes more skill, just because it is different.

It's tough to put value on what takes more skills. Today we have different skills. Your opinion is that more one dimensional makes it easier. First you need to prove that today we have less dimensions. Yes on the surface it seems this way. But we have other dimensions to compensate. You need more stamina, you need more defense on the baseline. You need more tactics since points are longer. They have amazing passing shots.

And even if you prove less dimensions. I don't think you can. But if you do, less dimensions means they are deeper. So it evens out.

So I don't agree that they are less dimensions. Also, I don't agree that more dimensions makes is harder, since less dimensions means deeper dimensions.

And because of money and motivation and more people playing. Also more knowledge. Nutrion and so on. Means that the closer we are to the evolutionary limits, the harder should be to distance yourself from others.

That is why to dominate even one dimension today, could be harder than to dominate 2 dimensions years ago.

Well, you should tell Ussain Bolt that you think for him it would be easier to collect more Olympics gold medals if he wins the 100 meter race, also the 200 meter race, also the 400 meter race, also the marathon, also the pole vault, also the discus throw, also the javelin throw....you should tell him that you think he will collect more Olympic gold medals if he wins all these events, after all, you say that "variation of conditions" is not more difficult than winning just always the same event, for him the 100 meters race.

Well, you should tell Ussain Bolt that you think for him it would be easier to collect more Olympics gold medals if he wins the 100 meter race, also the 200 meter race, also the 400 meter race, also the marathon, also the pole vault, also the discus throw, also the javelin throw....you should tell him that you think he will collect more Olympic gold medals if he wins all these events, after all, you say that "variation of conditions" is not more difficult than winning just always the same event, for him the 100 meters race.

I can assure you he will answer "are you stupid? moron!"

Click to expand...

No no no. C'mon...

Homogeneous conditions and improvements in technology can make things harder.

I mean... don't you agree that it's more difficult to make a fire these days than 500 years ago? Or more difficult to put a plane up in the air than 100 years ago?

Well... jg would say that it is easier to make a fire... but due to increases in technology... there is great skill and nuance required to strike a match versus rubbing sticks together for 45 minutes.

I thought he won somewhere in the 40s ATP titles. He never made the slam final after 1969, and so i'm guessing he won many little titles with a few number of players in the draw.

But keep in mind the establishment of the ATP was when tennis start migrating all over the world. ATP events begin to play on many nations, tennis got more expose, attracts more fans, and the playing pool increases. At the beginning, the field was still weak, it took sometime for the tour to grow(it's the same for the WTA). Today, tennis is the second most global sport(behind soccer) in the world. Evolution takes place.

Click to expand...

TMF, The pro tournaments with small fields were mostly held prior to open era. ATP forgot many tournaments. Tennis was wide-spread even before ATP was founded. For instance in 1968 there were more events than this year...

Seriously, you should call Ussain Bolt and you should tell him what you think, that he would win many more Olympic gold medals if he were to compete in many more different Olympic events.

Later tell us what he thinks about you...

Click to expand...

This is really bad analogy. 100 m vs marathon is a HUGE difference. Are you saying this is the same as grass vs clay? Also different sport. Some sports are structured differently. You can't compare really.

But this is still tennis. Movement is the the same across surfaces.
The only difference is a slight ball bounce. The difference between clay is still huge. Lower ball bounce on grass, very high on clay.

So the differences are minimal. I mean what evidence do you have how much the speed changed? Give me some numbers. Technology can also affect the ball bounce(more spin, higher bounce). So we should compensate when watching videos.

Give me in numbers how much inches is the ball bounce different today across surfaces than in the 90s? And why does a few inches difference makes so tougher to dominate?

Also you need to define what harder means. Does it mean more skills? Also you need to define skills. Today you need different skills. You need more stamina. You need more defense.

Sorry, I don't get this. Are you just trolling me, lol. Why can't we both use the most recent technology?

Click to expand...

Because your assertion is that improvement in technology and making venues more homogeneous makes the task at hand harder. My assertion was the opposite.

I asserted that achieving a win in a tennis match was much more difficult in past eras because the technologies were so prehistoric and the venues so polarized. In past eras, it required all court tennis and a mastery of all tennis skills at the highest levels in order to win. In modern days, if you have a 135mph serve and can hit a forehand... you can be Top-20.

You disagreed.

So if your assertion is correct, then it should be more difficult for me to achieve a victory with a brand-new bicycle than with a 50 year old bicycle.

Because your assertion is that improvement in technology and making venues more homogeneous makes the task at hand harder. My assertion was the opposite.

I asserted that achieving a win in a tennis match was much more difficult in past eras because the technologies were so prehistoric and the venues so polarized. In past eras, it required all court tennis and a mastery of all tennis skills at the highest levels in order to win. In modern days, if you have a 135mph serve and can hit a forehand... you can be Top-20.

You disagreed.

So if your assertion is correct, then it should be more difficult for me to achieve a victory with a brand-new motorcycle than with a 50 year old motorcycle.

Or are you also going to say that this is an invalid comparison?

Click to expand...

My assertion is different for different things.

About technology. I say technology has no baring on the difficulty. Since conditions are the same for all players. We can both use hands to play tennis. Relative difficulty should be the same.

I'm saying it is harder to win because of depth due to more people playing because of popularity. Also because of more incentive, the same people try harder. Motivational factors.

Also harder to win because of evolution. Means we are getting closer to our limits, so not enough room to improve and to distance yourself from the field.

I'm still undecided about homogenization. That is the only thing I'm very open to discussions. I don't think we have enough data yet.

Jordan plays on the same court. Does this means it was easier for him to dominate? That is only one surface.

Let's say we play tennis only on one court, indoor hard. Yes, it should be easier in theory. But the competition would also be insane, since all would train only for this dimension. The depth would be insane.

Variety makes it easier to distance yourself from the field. Because you get skills from other surfaces that you can use everywhere. So you can beat onedimensional players.

It's like this. A guy who plays piano and a little guitar should have the edge on a piano vs a guy who plays only piano. Because you improve overall intelligence from variety, so you can distance yourself from a guy who plays piano only.

This is just analogy to prove a point. And variety has to be balanced. Otherwise you can be counterproductive. Of course if a guy plays 50 instruments he probably won't be better on each individual instrument.

Variety means more room to improve and dominate. But before you reach critical mass of course.

I'm saying it is harder to win because of depth due to more people playing because of popularity. Also because of more incentive, the same people try harder. Motivational factors.

Also harder to win because of evolution. Means we are getting closer to our limits, so not enough room to improve and to distance yourself from the field.

Click to expand...

You are saying that the current field is deeper than the older one. You are saying the current field has more incentive... that they are more motivated. You are also saying now that evolution makes it harder today than it was in the past.

Sorry, at this point I think you are arguing just to argue. I think you have painted yourself into an argumentative relativistic corner that you can't get out of... and you are just babbling nonsense.

It isn't really productive or sensible anymore to engage in a discussion with you anymore if you're going to do this.

You are saying that the current field is deeper than the older one. You are saying the current field has more incentive... that they are more motivated. You are also saying now that evolution makes it harder today than it was in the past.

Sorry, at this point I think you are arguing just to argue. I think you have painted yourself into an argumentative relativistic corner that you can't get out of... and you are just babbling nonsense.

It isn't really productive or sensible anymore to engage in a discussion with you anymore if you're going to do this.

Click to expand...

Haha, maybe you are right. But I really want to know the truth. I'm willing to compromise. I'm not trying to win an argument.

Are you willing to even reconsider my theory? That more incentive and more people playing makes field deeper?

Fed says this is golden era. But he also says they have better incentive, money and being reminded about records all the time.

But he also says that homogenization makes it easier for him. So, I don't take his statements lightly. He is an expert. I just want to understand the logic behind it, not just because Fed says. I need to know why he says this.

Because I was playing a strategy game on the elite level. We had more maps. That is the same as more surfaces. And it was easier for me to win against specialists, since they were too onedimensional.

abmk, Please tell us what is wrong with Laver's 76 titles since 1968! Thanks.

Click to expand...

first off, not all all of them are officially recognized by the ATP.

secondly, many of them are 4 main fields and 'small tournaments' , the likes of which are not played today.

so when you defend the no of official majors of rosewall, laver saying that was because of the pro-amateur split, you need to be honest while admitting that they won lot more titles back then not just because they were that good, but also because there were so many smaller tournaments back then with weak fields .

I see. So your contention is that sports with more homogeneous venues and superior technology is "better" than sports with more static technology and more heterogeneous venues? The modern day where a guy can make the Top 15 with just a massive serve and not much else?

Click to expand...

This is not a good post. Today's top players have better serve, better return, better passing shot, better groundstrokes, better defense,more athletic, more power, more stamina and better fitness, etc... Advanced technology forced them to be better. The ridiculous pace, the spin and the angle force the players become a better athletes.

Sorry, I disagree. I personally think that the sport was beautiful back then. I feel like more of an all-court game was required. I think the game required far more skill, strategy, and the ability to adapt.

You may think that this is where sports are "getting better", but I certainly disagree with that.

Click to expand...

I don't just think but have observed the game, and not just tennis but other sports. All of them have improved. You are entitled to your opinion. All I know is you're the minority and I'm the majority.;-)

And beautiful game doesn't equate success(or failure). Roger is great because he show us the numbers, not because of his beautiful game. Nadal has an unorthodox style but people don't judge his ugly game but his achievements.

No disrespect to Nadal/Federer, but I'll take a Borg/McEnroe match any day over watching Nadal hit topspin moonballs to Fed's backhand so he can shank them. I'll take Sampras/Rafter over Federer/Davydenko where those two just sit on the baseline, run back and forth, and hit 90mph forehands at each other.

Click to expand...

(SIGH)Just because you enjoy watching Borg/McEnroe more doesn't mean they are the better player. That's like saying I like to watch Helen Wills Moody so she has to be better than Graf.

Tennis hasn't gotten "better"... it has gotten worse in the skill department.

Click to expand...

The game has changed and today's players must master a difference set of skills. You can't prove certain set of skills are more difficult to win than the others. You can only argue that there's more athletes competing in the modern tennis makes it more difficult to climb to the top.

secondly, many of them are 4 main fields and 'small tournaments' , the likes of which are not played today.

so when you defend the no of official majors of rosewall, laver saying that was because of the pro-amateur split, you need to be honest while admitting that they won lot more titles back then not just because they were that good, but also because there were so many smaller tournaments back then with weak fields .

Click to expand...

Prudent abmk, WRONG: Laver won almost no small tournaments in open era!

I had thought you are more intelligent than TMF, but alas...

In the old pro ranks before 1968 even some 4 men events were harder to win than a 32 man amateur event. Gonzalez had to beat Hoad and Llaver (plus indirectly Rosewall) to win the 1964 Golden Racquet title...

Even some 32 man tournaments of today are easier to win than those old events.

This is not a good post. Today's top players have better serve, better return, better passing shot, better groundstrokes, better defense,more athletic, more power, more stamina and better fitness, etc... Advanced technology forced them to be better. The ridiculous pace, the spin and the angle force the players become a better athletes.

I don't just think but have observed the game, and not just tennis but other sports. All of them have improved. You are entitled to your opinion. All I know is you're the minority and I'm the majority.;-)

And beautiful game doesn't equate success(or failure). Roger is great because he show us the numbers, not because of his beautiful game. Nadal has an unorthodox style but people don't judge his ugly game but his achievements.

(SIGH)Just because you enjoy watching Borg/McEnroe more doesn't mean they are the better player. That's like saying I like to watch Helen Wills Moody so she has to be better than Graf.

The game has changed and today's players must master a difference set of skills. You can't prove certain set of skills are more difficult to win than the others. You can only argue that there's more athletes competing in the modern tennis makes it more difficult to climb to the top.

Click to expand...

Mighty Federer, Handling the old wood racquet needed more skills than handling the modern racquets.

secondly, many of them are 4 main fields and 'small tournaments' , the likes of which are not played today.

so when you defend the no of official majors of rosewall, laver saying that was because of the pro-amateur split, you need to be honest while admitting that they won lot more titles back then not just because they were that good, but also because there were so many smaller tournaments back then with weak fields .

That's all right, TMF. TV got debunked big time. So big that it's not even funny! See my post above about how he interpreted Laver's words.

Click to expand...

Equal means equal, not "equal...well, except for in one area," and if--by Laver's estimation--Nadal is Federer's equal (or in McEnroe's case among others, superior to Federer), then none of Federer's fans can continue to belittle Nadal (at the risk of writing Laver off) as being some bridesmaid to Federer's bride of this tennis period.

There is a reason Nadal's 2013 French Open victory once again opened the doors for voices to doubt any generational label favoring Federer. In other words, this is not Seles v. Graf, where the chasm between them made any comparison a fruitless exercise with only one, repeating conclusion.

To the point, this goes back to the reason the F.F. continues to attack Nadal--from his astounding accomplishments, to his family, heritage, false PED claims, manner of speaking, to personal habits, they wish to accuse, convict, then damn Nadal. All because he is the unavoidavble crack in their funhouse mirrors of distorted history--based on fandom living in one moment, rather than judgements based on the long road of history.

Nadal is the ultimate, living symbol of debunking the most inflated myth in sports history.

Equal means equal, not "equal...well, except for in one area," and if--by Laver's estimation--Nadal is Federer's equal (or in McEnroe's case among others, superior to Federer), then none of Federer's fans can continue to belittle Nadal (at the risk of writing Laver off) as being some bridesmaid to Federer's bride of this tennis period.

There is a reason Nadal's 2013 French Open victory once again opened the doors for voices to doubt any generational label favoring Federer. In other words, this is not Seles v. Graf, where the chasm between them made any comparison a fruitless exercise with only one, repeating conclusion.

To the point, this goes back to the reason the F.F. continues to attack Nadal--from his astounding accomplishments, to his family, heritage, false PED claims, manner of speaking, to personal habits, they wish to accuse, convict, then damn Nadal. All because he is the unavoidavble crack in their funhouse mirrors of distorted history--based on fandom living in one moment, rather than judgements based on the long road of history.

Nadal is the ultimate, living symbol of debunking the most inflated myth in sports history.

...and he's not retiring anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Too bad you can't see that most people attack Nadal because of Nadal, it has nothing to do with Federer. Not a single person from all people I know in personal life give a damn about the GOAT debate, it's all because of him grabbing his vital parts and showing unsportsmanlike conduct.
Too bad the N.F. won't understand this, but maybe it's because many of them are small children, so I think it's a matter of maturing more and maybe they will be able to develop some common sense as well.
So the F.F. attacking Nadal because they see him as a threat, are part of a small group of people on this particular forum. Yet you make it seem like this applies to all Federer fans. And the truth is, you are part of a small group attacking Federer because he is the GOAT. Most Nadal and Federer fans get along just fine. And most people you are referring to aren't even Fed fans

Prudent abmk, WRONG: Laver won almost no small tournaments in open era!

I had thought you are more intelligent than TMF, but alas...

In the old pro ranks before 1968 even some 4 men events were harder to win than a 32 man amateur event. Gonzalez had to beat Hoad and Llaver (plus indirectly Rosewall) to win the 1964 Golden Racquet title...

Even some 32 man tournaments of today are easier to win than those old events.

Click to expand...

Agree.

In another thread, we have Federer saying how concerned his is with the skill level of the younger generation.

And it just so happens that Federer is the last great all-courter.

Although reading all of these other guys' posts... they are pushing the notion that increased field size, increased motivation, increased incentive, better technology... is yielding better and stronger players than in time's past.

Too bad you can't see that most people attack Nadal because of Nadal, it has nothing to do with Federer.

Click to expand...

Sure it does not. Yeah, its just pure coincidence that Nadal's most vociferous critics on this board just so happen to count innumerable Federer fans among their ranks. It is just pure coincidence that every time a positive is listed about Nadal in post or thread, in come the same, usual suspects (F.F.) attacking everything about him. And I guess the same, usual suspects had absolutely nothing to do with the torrential flood of anti-Nadal threads which popped up after his French Open victory.

Not likely.

it's all because of him grabbing his vital parts and showing unsportsmanlike conduct.

Click to expand...

1. Nadal is far from the only player ever to remove underwear from his rear. Then, there's the spitting tennis players, the snorting tennis players, the players who toss towels at ballboys like they are a coat rack, etc.

Targeting Nadal in light of other tennis players' allegedly questionable habits carries the weight of agenda.

2. Unsportsmanlike conduct? Yes, Nadal is a rare one there, because Federer, Hewitt, Djokovic, Murray, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Nastase, et al., have been angels from Heaven throughout their careers.

Call me when Nadal commits an act never seen before.

Too bad the N.F. won't understand this, but maybe it's because many of them are small children, so I think it's a matter of maturing more and maybe they will be able to develop some common sense as well.

Click to expand...

^ When all else fails...flame.

So the F.F. attacking Nadal because they see him as a threat, are part of a small group of people on this particular forum. Yet you make it seem like this applies to all Federer fans

Click to expand...

Fringe.

Here's what it does not mean: the entire body of Federer fans, but the fringe is in great numbers on nearly every board i've ever seen--this one at the top of the list.

I'll leave it at that.

Addendum: if Nadal loses today, I will save all of the hate-Nadal posts (already running), celebrating his demise, and i know the usual suspects will be leading the charge, hammering the F.F. analysis home.

Too bad you can't see that most people attack Nadal because of Nadal, it has nothing to do with Federer. Not a single person from all people I know in personal life give a damn about the GOAT debate, it's all because of him grabbing his vital parts and showing unsportsmanlike conduct.
Too bad the N.F. won't understand this, but maybe it's because many of them are small children, so I think it's a matter of maturing more and maybe they will be able to develop some common sense as well.
So the F.F. attacking Nadal because they see him as a threat, are part of a small group of people on this particular forum. Yet you make it seem like this applies to all Federer fans. And the truth is, you are part of a small group attacking Federer because he is the GOAT. Most Nadal and Federer fans get along just fine. And most people you are referring to aren't even Fed fans

Click to expand...

It's ashamed that the same anti-Feds continue to misrepresent the Fed fans. A few bad apples doesn't represent the entire fan base.

Prudent abmk, WRONG: Laver won almost no small tournaments in open era!

I had thought you are more intelligent than TMF, but alas...

In the old pro ranks before 1968 even some 4 men events were harder to win than a 32 man amateur event. Gonzalez had to beat Hoad and Llaver (plus indirectly Rosewall) to win the 1964 Golden Racquet title...

Even some 32 man tournaments of today are easier to win than those old events.

Click to expand...

You claimed you only saw Roger play 10 times and don't follow modern tennis. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

It was in the former pro player talk forum. The other posters have quoted you saying you only saw Federer played 10 times. Federer have played over 1000 matches in his career! So for someone who has seen so little indicates that he/she doesn't know much(if any) about current tennis.

It was in the former pro player talk forum. The other posters have quoted you saying you only saw Federer played 10 times. Federer have played over 1000 matches in his career! So for someone who has seen so little indicates that he/she doesn't know much(if any) about current tennis.

Click to expand...

I can back you on that, he did say he wasn't following it very closely...just like he said the lack of touch shots....them really bad lists, etc. it's all there, just who's got time to look up the exact quote.

I can back you on that, he did say he wasn't following it very closely...just like he said the lack of touch shots....them really bad lists, etc. it's all there, just who's got time to look up the exact quote.

It was in the former pro player talk forum. The other posters have quoted you saying you only saw Federer played 10 times. Federer have played over 1000 matches in his career! So for someone who has seen so little indicates that he/she doesn't know much(if any) about current tennis.

Click to expand...

Mighty Federer, Again: don't lie.

I might have seen less modern matches than you have. On the other hand, I have seen more matches of the past than you. But you use to write also about older tennis.

I can back you on that, he did say he wasn't following it very closely...just like he said the lack of touch shots....them really bad lists, etc. it's all there, just who's got time to look up the exact quote.

Click to expand...

Forzamilan90, You back him because one member of the Federer Armada would support the other members...